cuchulainn
May 22, 2003, 08:09 AM
from the Orange County Register
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=40193§ion=SPORTS&subsection=RECREATION&year=2003&month=5&day=21Wednesday, May 21, 2003
Gun law lies in the major news media
On a daily basis we see outright lies and prejudice in the media, including the so-called "prestigious" media.
By JIMMATTHEWS
The Outdoor News Service
The media has made an incredible amount of noise about how a New York Times reporter pilfered other writer's material and made up outright fabrications in a whole series of news stories he did for what many people consider the nation's premier newspaper. The only people who weren't shocked, it seems, was the American public.
Why? Because on a daily basis we see outright lies and prejudice in the media, including the so-called "prestigious" media, those who are supposed to be above this type of bias.
As a hunter and gun owner, it always amazes me how much outright lying makes it into the pages of major publications. All of us realize that commentaries and editorials are opinion pieces, and that we can differ on whether gun control is legitimate or not, about whether hunting is acceptable or not. But I'm not sure its OK for people to spout outright lies to try to make their case for or against an issue.
Two examples from very prominent media in recent weeks involve legislation that would shield gun makers from unfounded and reckless lawsuits. The legislation recently passed the U.S. House and will likely be voted upon soon by the Senate, where it is also expected to pass.
The gun industry has been sued repeatedly by cities and states who argue that the maker is responsible how the product is used. Liberal policy makers have resorted to this tactic when they can't get their desired gun control legislation passed. They are blatant in saying that the lawsuits are about driving gun makers out of business to accomplish their gun control agenda. Almost all of these lawsuits have eventually been thrown out of court, but the cost to the gunmakers has been high.
In a recent Newsweek, Anna Quindlen, an avowed anti-gunner, wrote in a commentary piece that the tort reform passed by the House would give gun makers and sellers blanket immunity from lawsuits. She wrote that victims of the Washington D.C. snipers would not be able to hold the gun shop that illegally sold the gun to the shooters responsible if the bill passed the Senate and was signed by the president.
This week, the Los Angeles Times, repeated the same statement in an editorial. "No other industry has such immunity. Not automakers that have paid millions to victims after SUVs flipped over or defective tires burst. Or crib makers whose badly spaced bars choked babies to death," wrote the Times.
Both statements about the extent of the protection the bill would give gun makers and sellers are outright lies. The tort reform would do noting to shield those businesses, like the Washington state gun store that illegally sold guns to the snipers and kept improper records, who violate one of the hundreds of gun laws on the books. It would not shield those who market their guns to criminals. Few industries are so tightly regulated as firearm makers, and this bill would not change that.
The law would continue to allow lawsuits if makers designed faulty firearms (like SUVs with flawed designs that promote rollovers or cribs that choke babies), violated laws in their sales (perhaps like the Washington gun store, which has not been charged with any law violations that I know of), or didn't comply with all of the state and regional regulations (perhaps like Bushmaster, the maker of the sniper's rifle, which also has not been charged). The only thing it would do is protect them from lawsuits that suggest the maker or seller was responsible when a non-defective, legally-sold gun was used in a crime.
A gang member uses a gun stolen from your house to shoot another gang member, and Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times' writers want you to believe that its OK for the victim to sue you, the dealer who sold you the gun, and the maker of that gun, even though no laws were violated along that chain. That is what happens now.
Using this reasoning, General Motors could be sued now for all drunk driving accidents because they don't have some breathalyzer device that would make it impossible to start their cars if the driver had been drinking. Criminals could sue tire makers if their escape car's tires went flat after they hit a spike strip at 100 miles per hour and crashed. Crib maker's could be sued for causing Sudden Infant Death Syndrome simply because a baby died while sleeping in their crib. It could have been the paint or the wood or the glue. No facts, just speculation, and the crib maker's could be sued.
That's how it's been for the gun industry.
If there is cause to believe that a gun product was defective or sold illegally, the tort reform offers no protections to the gun industry. Read the legislation and you will see this is about quashing frivolous lawsuits.
Yet in its drive to promote a gun control agenda, the media lies about these facts to try to scare the general public. This profound bias, on a wide range of subjects, has tarnished the image of media more than any one New York Times reporter.
Is a lie in an editorial as bad as a lie in a news section? Is presenting only one side of an issue valid news coverage? Obviously the general media hasn't figured out the answer to these questions or they wouldn't be so shocked about one New York Times reporter.
OUTDOOR NEWS/NOTES
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=40193§ion=SPORTS&subsection=RECREATION&year=2003&month=5&day=21Wednesday, May 21, 2003
Gun law lies in the major news media
On a daily basis we see outright lies and prejudice in the media, including the so-called "prestigious" media.
By JIMMATTHEWS
The Outdoor News Service
The media has made an incredible amount of noise about how a New York Times reporter pilfered other writer's material and made up outright fabrications in a whole series of news stories he did for what many people consider the nation's premier newspaper. The only people who weren't shocked, it seems, was the American public.
Why? Because on a daily basis we see outright lies and prejudice in the media, including the so-called "prestigious" media, those who are supposed to be above this type of bias.
As a hunter and gun owner, it always amazes me how much outright lying makes it into the pages of major publications. All of us realize that commentaries and editorials are opinion pieces, and that we can differ on whether gun control is legitimate or not, about whether hunting is acceptable or not. But I'm not sure its OK for people to spout outright lies to try to make their case for or against an issue.
Two examples from very prominent media in recent weeks involve legislation that would shield gun makers from unfounded and reckless lawsuits. The legislation recently passed the U.S. House and will likely be voted upon soon by the Senate, where it is also expected to pass.
The gun industry has been sued repeatedly by cities and states who argue that the maker is responsible how the product is used. Liberal policy makers have resorted to this tactic when they can't get their desired gun control legislation passed. They are blatant in saying that the lawsuits are about driving gun makers out of business to accomplish their gun control agenda. Almost all of these lawsuits have eventually been thrown out of court, but the cost to the gunmakers has been high.
In a recent Newsweek, Anna Quindlen, an avowed anti-gunner, wrote in a commentary piece that the tort reform passed by the House would give gun makers and sellers blanket immunity from lawsuits. She wrote that victims of the Washington D.C. snipers would not be able to hold the gun shop that illegally sold the gun to the shooters responsible if the bill passed the Senate and was signed by the president.
This week, the Los Angeles Times, repeated the same statement in an editorial. "No other industry has such immunity. Not automakers that have paid millions to victims after SUVs flipped over or defective tires burst. Or crib makers whose badly spaced bars choked babies to death," wrote the Times.
Both statements about the extent of the protection the bill would give gun makers and sellers are outright lies. The tort reform would do noting to shield those businesses, like the Washington state gun store that illegally sold guns to the snipers and kept improper records, who violate one of the hundreds of gun laws on the books. It would not shield those who market their guns to criminals. Few industries are so tightly regulated as firearm makers, and this bill would not change that.
The law would continue to allow lawsuits if makers designed faulty firearms (like SUVs with flawed designs that promote rollovers or cribs that choke babies), violated laws in their sales (perhaps like the Washington gun store, which has not been charged with any law violations that I know of), or didn't comply with all of the state and regional regulations (perhaps like Bushmaster, the maker of the sniper's rifle, which also has not been charged). The only thing it would do is protect them from lawsuits that suggest the maker or seller was responsible when a non-defective, legally-sold gun was used in a crime.
A gang member uses a gun stolen from your house to shoot another gang member, and Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times' writers want you to believe that its OK for the victim to sue you, the dealer who sold you the gun, and the maker of that gun, even though no laws were violated along that chain. That is what happens now.
Using this reasoning, General Motors could be sued now for all drunk driving accidents because they don't have some breathalyzer device that would make it impossible to start their cars if the driver had been drinking. Criminals could sue tire makers if their escape car's tires went flat after they hit a spike strip at 100 miles per hour and crashed. Crib maker's could be sued for causing Sudden Infant Death Syndrome simply because a baby died while sleeping in their crib. It could have been the paint or the wood or the glue. No facts, just speculation, and the crib maker's could be sued.
That's how it's been for the gun industry.
If there is cause to believe that a gun product was defective or sold illegally, the tort reform offers no protections to the gun industry. Read the legislation and you will see this is about quashing frivolous lawsuits.
Yet in its drive to promote a gun control agenda, the media lies about these facts to try to scare the general public. This profound bias, on a wide range of subjects, has tarnished the image of media more than any one New York Times reporter.
Is a lie in an editorial as bad as a lie in a news section? Is presenting only one side of an issue valid news coverage? Obviously the general media hasn't figured out the answer to these questions or they wouldn't be so shocked about one New York Times reporter.
OUTDOOR NEWS/NOTES